View Single Post
Old
03-23-2013, 03:10 PM
  #5
walle
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Northpole
Posts: 1,166
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by number72 View Post
Fenwick correlates with 40% of winning (P%). So teams that win tend to have a high fenwick (loosely they tend to outshoot or out chance their competition). Correlation doesn't mean it causes winning but that teams that win tend to outshoot. 60% of the game is either not captures by Fenwick (grit, intangibles, clutchiness etc) or is luck driven (50/50 puck battles etc).

They are guidelines to consider but can and do breakdown. However, they may suggest a team like anaheim is playing above their heads and will eventually come crashing down. But they can't tell you when anaheim will crash - this year, next year etc. But simply, the probabilty is that they will start playing more average hockey
I think Ducks are a good example why fenwick is a good and bad stat depending how you use it. Now they're about 46-47% Fenwick team which is almost/about bottom 5 in the league. So they should crash down you could easily assume. But lets take a closer look inside their team and what fenwick tells. Their top6 players are about 49-52% while bottom 6 are 40-45%. So most importantly their top players are performing and evening things up, and as shutting down their top quality opponents they're also limited to 50-50 range thus bottom 6 "getting beat" is not as bad as they're also getting beat by lower quality opponents who's skill and finish aint gonna as likely result in goals against. My point is that using advanced stats should also be used in comparing roles in the teams and players performing those roles so we can have clear picture whats going on and how. Ducks look worse than they're because they've their important roles are working, which in the end are the ones winning games.

walle is offline   Reply With Quote